To take a phrase of Rab's a wankhat is when you essentially gush about a game by analysing philiosophical/political aspects of the game. Or by analysing it as high art or an artistic statement.

A paper wankhat however is this applied wholly without merit. Talking about an aspect of the game that the maker has said doesn't matter or attributing high socio-political commentary to a game when it never even tries to go there.
Basically its people writing highschool english lit essays about how Gears of War is a savage indictment of the vietnam war.

This is my favourite example.
http://www.experiencepoints.net/2010/12/critical-eyes-on-civilization.html

"Civilization V procedurally renders a vapid conception of social relations marked by blanket uniformity. Although players can unlock globalization as a technology, the game does not model a complex economic system of globalized production and consumption across borders. Civilizations are neatly confined and controlled. Poverty and inequality are not an issue, and class holds no explanatory relevance for historical processes or civilizational growth."

Rii

29-01-2012, 03:15 PM

I disagree with everything you have written.

Now, from the link...

The UN functions as a narrative facade, obscuring one method to declare a single individual the winner. An election does take place in which city-states vote and play a deciding role. However, city-states can be bribed with gold or permanently influenced by liberating their city from other civilizations
I fail to see the inaccuracy. http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/6813/rolleyesd.gif

For my part it was Mr. Gillen himself who first led me down the garden path. (http://gillen.cream.org/wordpress_html/?page_id=1103) Such a gentleman.

Rakysh

29-01-2012, 03:25 PM

So what you're trying to say is that art only has meaning when its maker intends it? Seems a bit restrictive.

Malawi Frontier Guard

29-01-2012, 04:24 PM

This thread will bring death and destruction.

Keep

29-01-2012, 04:43 PM

Civilization V quotes

I'd actually go with a lot of that criticism.

"Peace is just another form of [...] control".

"Civilization V peddles modernist myths of linear and irreversible progress and characterizes political relations as neatly organized and legible."

Good stuff. If you tried to play as King Cnut in Civilization, the tides'd be modelled to obey you.

My favourite wankhat game is The Sims. I've not found anyone really lay into it, dissect exactly why it's so abhorrent, but I'd love to read such a piece (if anyone knows any, lemme lemme know).

Rii

31-01-2012, 06:48 AM

Not gaming-related, but by the time I was done reading this (http://martinseay.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/ďainít-got-a-care-in-the-world-but-got-plenty-of-beer-ainít-got-no-money-in-my-pocket-but-iím-already-hereĒ) piece I had decided to like Ke$ha on general principle.

Nalano

31-01-2012, 08:07 AM

One of the things I noticed about Civ games was that technological progress can greatly outpace the real world for several pretty simple reasons:

No succession issues. Each Civ has one leader forever, and that leader is generally not schizophrenic.
The whole civilization works towards one goal. Citizens can be allocated where-ever they are needed, instantly.
Information is instantaneous. It may take years for an army to cross a continent, but you know where everything is at all times.

Or, to put it simply, it's a fucking game, not a history simulator.

That being said, it's a model, and we use models to define the world. So, change the model! Empire: Total War, for instance, had an interesting long-term mechanic where you started with a monarch and could pick and choose and develop his/her staff and lineage based on the best for your empire, but the further you got down the tech tree, the more the common masses started clamoring for revolution - either a constitutional monarchy or a republic, which not only got rid of all your hand-picked viziers, but shut out in interesting ways your direct control over the administration of your government.

Also, overseas territories could all rise up and become independent nations.

Another interesting mechanic would be if, in your Civ game, due to unease, half your empire suddenly rose up against you. Civil war! If, due to starvation, people demanded a different regent. If, due to corruption, your armies stopped answering your orders. If, due to the lack of an infrastructure, you didn't know what was happening at your borders - or, for that matter, outside the capital within your borders.

DigitalSignalX

31-01-2012, 08:17 AM

This thread will bring death and destruction. Not sure if he's still banned or not.

...

My favorite "wankhat" piece of all time isn't about video games, it's the Clerks scene regarding civilian casualties on the Death Star (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQdDRrcAOjA)(note the music: oohhh chewbaccaaaaahhhh!). George Lucas actually mentions it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFKhV_X6-cg) in one of his DVD audio commentaries.

In games, it would have to be pretty much any Fox News story covering Sex in Mass Effect. Seriously. Talking heads going on for HOURS about it.

Nalano

31-01-2012, 08:39 AM

My favorite "wankhat" piece of all time isn't about video games, it's the Clerks scene regarding civilian casualties on the Death Star (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQdDRrcAOjA)(note the music: oohhh chewbaccaaaaahhhh!). George Lucas actually mentions it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFKhV_X6-cg) in one of his DVD audio commentaries.

To be fair, there's always been a divide between the people who liked the space opera of the original trilogy and George Lucas' flippant childrens' movie prequels, series and remakes. Forgetting Kevin Smith for a moment, would you discredit Joseph Campbell, whose work on archetypal mythologies provided Lucas with the impetus for the original trilogy in the first place? To point out the disconnect between a work that speaks to society in a substantive way and the cavalier attitude it takes to things like the Endor Holocaust (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoEndorHolocaust) isn't, I believe, "going too far," and I think Smith's staged mook conversation in Clerks is touching on that.